Hello everyone. I have always been fascinated at the idea of building new steam - whether it's of the ACE 3000 flavor or an exact replica of something long scrapped. Anyway, I enjoyed the discussion some threads back on this topic. My question to the board is, if it were possible, what would you have built? Would you continue with ACE, or build a new steamer from a class that was lost to the torch previously? Now, I want to frame this fantasy with the following assumptions, so no one flames my head off:1.) Money is no object.2.) You may run the locomotive anywhere.I'm interested to hear everyone's opinion. I have to say my vote would be for a Niagra. My understanding is, at the time of their retirement, with respect to servicing and maintenance, they were competing with the first generation diesels quite nicely. I suppose they were overcome by the cost effectiveness of the diesel nonetheless. Seth

Well, I've always favored the SP's Mountains, the 4300's. They were workhorses in California and Nevada, many running out their last days in commute service on the Peninsula. Real runners from what I've heard from folks in engine service back then.

Out of all the SP locomotives preserved, that's the one missing most, IMHO. I'd probably want one of the later production classes, an MT-5 with the skyline casing.

> Hello everyone. I have always been> fascinated at the idea of building new steam> - whether it's of the ACE 3000 flavor or an> exact replica of something long scrapped.> Anyway, I enjoyed the discussion some> threads back on this topic. My question to> the board is, if it were possible, what> would you have built? Would you continue> with ACE, or build a new steamer from a> class that was lost to the torch previously?

Make mine an NYC Niagara. A vastly better design than the PRR's duplex disasters and not so large that it couldn't go just about anywhere there are tracks. I like the PRR for other reasons, but their late steam designs were bombs. Don't include the J1, that was a Lima/C&O design. Bet Ross R. would love to take the throttle of one of the NYC 6000's.

These things were monsters and, when built, the biggest engines running. They were the most powerful 2-8-8-2s ever built and actually had more tractive effort than a Big Boy or an SP cab-forward. Only the GN fielded engines on the West Coast that could beat these behemoths.

Beg the UP to tie every frieght car possible behind it and then start at Oroville with a drag up the Feather River Canyon.

> These things were monsters and, when built,> the biggest engines running. They were the> most powerful 2-8-8-2s ever built and> actually had more tractive effort than a Big> Boy or an SP cab-forward. Only the GN> fielded engines on the West Coast that could> beat these behemoths.

> Beg the UP to tie every frieght car possible> behind it and then start at Oroville with a> drag up the Feather River Canyon.I think I would go for a USRA 4-8-2. Beautiful lines, plenty of power, and used by several railroads. And while we're at it, a string of brand new heavyweight cars to go behind it. Maybe an all Pullman consist and give the American Orient Express some competition..........

For something a little more realistic, much cheaper, and much more useful, I'd build a modern standard gauge 2-8-0 (or narrow gauge 2-8-2) for actual tourist service (see the GLRR thread way below). Include full sealed roller bearings, all welded construction, a comfortable cab and well-layed out controls, plus all the proven advances worked out in the last 40 years by Porta et al (Lempor exhaust, streamlined steam circuit, large piston valves, long-life multiple narrow rings on pistons and valves, high superheat, "excess" insulation, etc.). I'd probably make it oil-fired, but wood or coal-firing using the GPCS would be OK too.

I still think a locomotive like this would prove its value over restored historical steam when it comes to pulling trains to make a profit. SLM successor DLM has been preaching this for several years now.

> Hello everyone. I have always been> fascinated at the idea of building new steam> - whether it's of the ACE 3000 flavor or an> exact replica of something long scrapped.> Anyway, I enjoyed the discussion some> threads back on this topic. My question to> the board is, if it were possible, what> would you have built? Would you continue> with ACE, or build a new steamer from a> class that was lost to the torch previously?> Now, I want to frame this fantasy with the> following assumptions, so no one flames my> head off:> 1.) Money is no object.> 2.) You may run the locomotive anywhere.> I'm interested to hear everyone's opinion. I> have to say my vote would be for a Niagra.> My understanding is, at the time of their> retirement, with respect to servicing and> maintenance, they were competing with the> first generation diesels quite nicely. I> suppose they were overcome by the cost> effectiveness of the diesel nonetheless.> Seth

> Well, I've always favored the SP's> Mountains, the 4300's. They were workhorses> in California and Nevada, many running out> their last days in commute service on the> Peninsula. Real runners from what I've heard> from folks in engine service back then.

> Out of all the SP locomotives preserved,> that's the one missing most, IMHO. I'd> probably want one of the later production> classes, an MT-5 with the skyline casing.

How about an Espee P-10 in skyline casing? With a little paint and skirts, one could even recreate the San Joaquin Daylight. In fact, the 2479's tender originally was assigned to an MT class loco.

> For something a little more realistic, much> cheaper, and much more useful, I'd build a> modern standard gauge 2-8-0 (or narrow gauge> 2-8-2) for actual tourist service (see the> GLRR thread way below). Include full sealed> roller bearings, all welded construction, a> comfortable cab and well-layed out controls,> plus all the proven advances worked out in> the last 40 years by Porta et al (Lempor> exhaust, streamlined steam circuit, large> piston valves, long-life multiple narrow> rings on pistons and valves, high superheat,> "excess" insulation, etc.). I'd> probably make it oil-fired, but wood or> coal-firing using the GPCS would be OK too.

> I still think a locomotive like this would> prove its value over restored historical> steam when it comes to pulling trains to> make a profit. SLM successor DLM has been> preaching this for several years now.

I second the motion. However, I think a 2-6-2, with the trailing truck sprung like the engine truck for reverse running, would be the ideal loco for a tourist railroad. If the design of the running gear, frames, cylinders, etc. was "expandable" to a 2-8-2, you'd have two models to work with. You can keep your big track-masher engines 4-8-4s and Mallets. Give me a manageable Prairie any time! I also would avoid superheat for ease of maintenance.

> I second the motion. However, I think a> 2-6-2, with the trailing truck sprung like> the engine truck for reverse running, would> be the ideal loco for a tourist railroad. If> the design of the running gear, frames,> cylinders, etc. was "expandable"> to a 2-8-2, you'd have two models to work> with. You can keep your big track-masher> engines 4-8-4s and Mallets. Give me a> manageable Prairie any time! I also would> avoid superheat for ease of maintenance.

Good point about the trailing truck. I'll go along with making superheat optional, at least for short-run operations. I do think it is possible to make a "next-to-no maintenance" superheater. SLM came up with a very different superheater header arrangement for their modern rack steam engines they built in the 1990's that eliminates the ground joints. It's a step in the right direction, if not the ultimate solution.

To enlarge on Wayne's idea and Hughs, I would design one boiler and cylinder saddle (fabricated according to modern techniques) and useful for a variety of wheel arrangements in gages from 3 foot through standard Adding or subtracting a course from the boiler could go from 4 to 8 coupled. Strikes me that modern superheater design would likely be easily as reliable as old soakers.

One of the weaknesses of steam VS diesael was that diesels could be combined or engine blocks sharing common components lengthened or shortened for different uses, and the same truck components could be built with different geat ratios. Each different railroad need required a seperate steam design built specifically for its power and speed requirements.

This approach using common components would serve a lot of museum and tourist and theme park needs.

Al P.> For something a little more realistic, much> cheaper, and much more useful, I'd build a> modern standard gauge 2-8-0 (or narrow gauge> 2-8-2) for actual tourist service (see the> GLRR thread way below). Include full sealed> roller bearings, all welded construction, a> comfortable cab and well-layed out controls,> plus all the proven advances worked out in> the last 40 years by Porta et al (Lempor> exhaust, streamlined steam circuit, large> piston valves, long-life multiple narrow> rings on pistons and valves, high superheat,> "excess" insulation, etc.). I'd> probably make it oil-fired, but wood or> coal-firing using the GPCS would be OK too.

> I still think a locomotive like this would> prove its value over restored historical> steam when it comes to pulling trains to> make a profit. SLM successor DLM has been> preaching this for several years now.

G. W. Laepple

Post subject: Re: new steam

Posted: Wed Aug 18, 2004 6:36 pm

> To enlarge on Wayne's idea and Hughs, I> would design one boiler and cylinder saddle> (fabricated according to modern techniques)> and useful for a variety of wheel> arrangements in gages from 3 foot through> standard Adding or subtracting a course from> the boiler could go from 4 to 8 coupled.> Strikes me that modern superheater design> would likely be easily as reliable as old> soakers.

> One of the weaknesses of steam VS diesael> was that diesels could be combined or engine> blocks sharing common components lengthened> or shortened for different uses, and the> same truck components could be built with> different geat ratios. Each different> railroad need required a seperate steam> design built specifically for its power and> speed requirements.

> This approach using common components would> serve a lot of museum and tourist and theme> park needs.

> dave

Right on, Dave. I think a 50- or 52-inch driver diameter would do the trick for most applications, and having a common boiler/cylinder saddle size with the capability to add a course for a 2-8-2 would do the trick.

Baldwin built 2-6-2 and 2-8-2 engines for logging service that were originally fitted with slide valves and were later available with piston valves. I would still avoid superheat as one more thing to manage and repair. I am a strong believer in KISS. Heck, for some operations, a 2-6-2 or 2-8-2 side tank would be a useful locomotive.

> I think I would go for a USRA 4-8-2.> Beautiful lines, plenty of power, and used> by several railroads. And while we're at it,> a string of brand new heavyweight cars to go> behind it. Maybe an all Pullman consist and> give the American Orient Express some> competition..........

Gary:

Sounds to be like you've described the early GN Empire Builder - all heavyweight, P-2 class 4-8-2 on the head end. 2507 waiting to run in Wishram, WA!

Who is online

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum